E.R.T.M.S.

[The Stationmaster]

17 hours ago, bécasse said:

Malcolm told me, probably in 1988 about the time that work started on WIT, that the very first off-peak timetabling constraint that they had identified was the stopping service through the Weald of Kent and once that had been (sort of) overcome by flighting, all the other possibilities, notably the acceptability of the single reversible line approach to Waterloo and the minimising of the cost of Eurotunnel paths, followed on. There remained, of course, the problem of peak hours which could only be solved by the partial use of the Maidstone East route. The timetabling constraints imposed by the need to operate over SNCB ligne 94 shouldn't be forgotten either.

Interesting which is not the same as Dennis told me.  I suspect Malcom's comment comes from the time prior to the amalgamation of the two original project teams to form EPS and when the main timetable work started.  Malcolm was definitely very well up on all the problems which went into the timetable structure although interestingly the weald of Kent was an area where we didn't have any sort of problems (apart from Railtrack trying it on over penalty charges for early running).  The most common debating point with Railtrack - apart from their cock-eyed approach to weekend possessions and their impact on train services - was paths through Herne Hill and conflict (real or imagined - almost inevitably the latter) with Thameslink.

 

Ligne 84 had a far more significant problem than pathing and one which put SNCB to some additional cost for staffing.

[St. Simon]

On 09/07/2022 at 20:54, Mike Storey said:

I guess the key issue is the name. "The Digital Railway" does not really cover what the programme is trying to achieve - automated train control using moving block, with minimal lineside equipment, giving a theoretical ability to fit more trains into the same space, to allow higher running speeds where appropriate and to facilitate faster recovery from peturbation, with not least, much lower lifetime costs. Bit of a mouthful.

 

Hi Mike, 

 

Whilst what say is true, the Digital Railway Programme is so much more than ETCS, although that seems to be it's primary advertising message! The DRP is ETCS, Connected Driver Advisory Systems, Traffic Management Systems, Fleet and Crew Allocation systems linked to live reporting and signalling systems,  real time Remote Condition Monitoring of asset condition, improved costumer information via connected systems, service train based infrastructure monitoring (such as Northerns 'Intelligent Trains' programme), connected design and BIM systems, integrated possession planning and management software tools, degraded mode working tools. This list goes on and on.

 

On 09/07/2022 at 22:30, Edwin_m said:

Moorgate and the ECML will be Level 2, which is already running on Thameslink.  It produces some capacity benefit from being able to optimise block sections without the constraint of lineside signals, and the absence of those signals also reduces costs somewhat.  But it remains fixed block with lineside train detection equipment.  Moving block under ETCS doesn't happen until Level 3, which isn't in service anywhere.  

 

Level 3 is in operation in a few places, the Wuppertal Suspended Railway uses it very successfully, I also believe a couple of High Speed Lines in China uses it (albeit in their equivalent CTCS system). But you are right, not in use in the UK or most of Europe, principally due to the issues around proving train integrity of variable length trains (both passenger and freight).

 

On 10/07/2022 at 07:41, DY444 said:

 

I'm not sure about the minimal lineside equipment bit.  Yes the objective (in some schemes) is to remove the most visible lineside equipment - the signals - but there is still plenty of other stuff.  Location case manufacturers should have no fears.  The flip side is that the on-train equipment becomes more complex.

 

Level 2 no signals creates a huge saving in lineside equipment compared with current UK multi-aspect signalling. You get rid of the signals, the AWS & TPWS equipment, Locs that control such equipment, the lineside speed signage. Yes, you gain some balises and a few block markers and location markers, and you have to keep point motors and axle counters (although you can rationalise some sections), but there are still some serious lineside equipment savings.

 

I'll come back over tomorrow and the weekend to reply to the rest of the posts.

 

Simon

[bécasse]

7 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Interesting which is not the same as Dennis told me.  I suspect Malcom's comment comes from the time prior to the amalgamation of the two original project teams to form EPS and when the main timetable work started.  Malcolm was definitely very well up on all the problems which went into the timetable structure although interestingly the weald of Kent was an area where we didn't have any sort of problems (apart from Railtrack trying it on over penalty charges for early running).  The most common debating point with Railtrack - apart from their cock-eyed approach to weekend possessions and their impact on train services - was paths through Herne Hill and conflict (real or imagined - almost inevitably the latter) with Thameslink.

 

Ligne 84 had a far more significant problem than pathing and one which put SNCB to some additional cost for staffing.

I can't remember now when Malcolm's team were finally integrated into the EPS. It certainly wasn't in 1988, I then covered my professional speciality for EPS from BRHQ and was distinctly surprised to be told in the November of that year that my post was being transferred to EPS at Waterloo that week on the personal instruction of DDK. I was then the ninth member of the EPS team including the two secretaries. Malcolm, of course, had been involved in planning for the Channel Tunnel services even when he was SR GM and it became his full time role in 1982 when the Sectors were created.

 

Problems, real or imagined, with Thameslink paths at Herne Hill were long in the future then, they would have got short shift from DDK on corporate interest grounds in BRB days. I remember sitting in in a meeting where he was present as VC (but not as chair), I can't remember the subject now, when there was long diatribe from one of the Sectors (you can guess which one) on what they were going to do, and when the speaker finished, DDK quietly said "Mr B... that is not in the corporate interest and it will not happen". You could have heard a pin drop.

 

I am intrigued by your mention of problems on the Tournai-Ath-Halle line, I worked closely with the SNCB/NMBS and don't remember anything being mentioned other than the problems associated with Halle being located in Vlaams-Brabant and possibly the rail access to the platforms at Midi/Zuid.

 

One early meeting, at the Shell Centre (by Centrale station) comes particularly to mind. I travelled over via Harwich-HvH and arrived at Centrale about 45 minutes before the meeting was due to start, giving me just time to look over Bruxelles from a nearby vantage point. There I experienced the weird sensation that I had "come home", almost a premonition of the fact that three decades later I would be a Belgian citizen, although I had absolutely no inkling of that at the time.

[St. Simon]

On 10/07/2022 at 14:10, Mike Storey said:

As for maximum speeds, Pendolinos have been held back from their top speed of 140mph since introduction, specifically due to signalling constraints. I suspect 8xx series could manage more too.

 

But this does all require Level 3, it is true.

 

Hi,

 

140mph running fundamentally does not require ETCS, let alone Level 3. We have two methods by which we can achieve this currently.

 

First, it can be achieved by spacing the first caution signal at the relevant braking distance (although the tables don't actually state the distance as it is used in the UK), BUT, this does cause headway problems with slower trains. The second method is Flashing Greens as used on the ECML for Class 91 test trains, HOWEVER, it has been determined that at 140mph, the drivers simply don't enough time to process the meaning of the flashing green. These are the two reasons behind the whole '140mph needs cab signalling' argument, not any technological constraint within the current signalling system.

 

The Class 80x units are designed for 140mph running using ETCS.

 

Simon

[DY444]

9 hours ago, St. Simon said:

Level 2 no signals creates a huge saving in lineside equipment compared with current UK multi-aspect signalling. You get rid of the signals, the AWS & TPWS equipment, Locs that control such equipment, the lineside speed signage. Yes, you gain some balises and a few block markers and location markers, and you have to keep point motors and axle counters (although you can rationalise some sections), but there are still some serious lineside equipment savings.

 

As I see it savings totally depend on the scheme. 

 

I don't know what the current plans are given the need for cost savings but originally subsequent phases of the ECML (eg north of Grantham) were being talked about as retaining lineside signals.  No doubt that would involve replacement of all the lineside signals with new ones in the areas concerned with a consequent substantial increase in cost over doing a traditional like for like or just ETCS with no signals as you are effectively resignalling it twice in terms of lineside equipment.

 

Then you have schemes where ETCS appears to be being considered for reasons other than life expiry such as Paddington to Airport Jn.  The signalling equipment there is barely half the age of most of that in say the Doncaster PSB area.  No doubt there are sound reasons for doing that stretch but if the decision was based solely on asset condition it seems improbable to me it would be near the top of the list.  Or put another way a cost is being incurred which otherwise wouldn't be for another decade at least.  If the answer is the age of GW-ATP then my response would be that it will still be there from Airport Jn to Bristol and the whole line from West Drayton to Bristol and South Wales has been resignalled in the last decade.      

 

Actually GW-ATP is a good example of the tangle the railway gets itself into.  It's now considered indispensable and potentially worthy of otherwise unnecessary large capital expenditure to retain an equivalent capability despite its limited coverage, its absence from every other line running at over 110mph and only one class of train being fitted with it.  I am fully aware of the history and sensitivity of Southall et al but it does rather seem to be an albatross around the necks of those making investment decisions. 

Edited July 15, 2022 by DY444

[The Stationmaster]

13 hours ago, bécasse said:

 

I am intrigued by your mention of problems on the Tournai-Ath-Halle line, I worked closely with the SNCB/NMBS and don't remember anything being mentioned other than the problems associated with Halle being located in Vlaams-Brabant and possibly the rail access to the platforms at Midi/Zuid.

 

The problem was language - EPS/Eurostar UK and SNCF Drivers were only required to be bilingual in English and French whereas various SNCB signal boxes were in Flemish speaking areas where the staff were not required to be bilingual (in French) or if they were wouldn't admit to it - see below *.  Hence French speakers had to be provided as additional staff on the relevant shifts in any signal box staffed by Flemish speakers.  One of those unusual aspects of running a railway in Belgium but at least on that occasion I don't think there was a religious requirement as well (which did apply to salaried staff and managerial posts where religions had to be 'balanced' as well as language).

 

* On one occasion I attended a strike replacement 'bus service planning meeting at Brussel Zuid and one of the attendees disclaimed all knowledge of the French language while another said he was not prepared to speak it when the Chairman asked if the meeting could be conducted in French for my benefit.  So the meeting was conducted in Flemish with everything initially being translated for me but as we dealt with each item in the same format I duly acquired a limited, but sufficient, understanding of spoken Flemish to do without translation.

 

Back to ERTMS 

[Mike Storey]

15 hours ago, St. Simon said:

 

Hi,

 

140mph running fundamentally does not require ETCS, let alone Level 3. We have two methods by which we can achieve this currently.

 

First, it can be achieved by spacing the first caution signal at the relevant braking distance (although the tables don't actually state the distance as it is used in the UK), BUT, this does cause headway problems with slower trains. The second method is Flashing Greens as used on the ECML for Class 91 test trains, HOWEVER, it has been determined that at 140mph, the drivers simply don't enough time to process the meaning of the flashing green. These are the two reasons behind the whole '140mph needs cab signalling' argument, not any technological constraint within the current signalling system.

 

The Class 80x units are designed for 140mph running using ETCS.

 

Simon

 

Hi Simon

 

I think we are fundamentally agreeing, except perhaps on one point. If you try to accelerate trains to 140 mph on fixed block, you hit the same headway problems as for fixed signals. That is why it is sensible to regard higher speed running (assuming a busy railway) as only routinely feasible with moving block, and even then, constraints appear in between other, slower moving trains.

 

[Mike Storey]

5 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

As I see it savings totally depend on the scheme. 

 

I don't know what the current plans are given the need for cost savings but originally subsequent phases of the ECML (eg north of Grantham) were being talked about as retaining lineside signals.  No doubt that would involve replacement of all the lineside signals with new ones in the areas concerned with a consequent substantial increase in cost over doing a traditional like for like or just ETCS with no signals as you are effectively resignalling it twice in terms of lineside equipment.

 

Then you have schemes where ETCS appears to be being considered for reasons other than life expiry such as Paddington to Airport Jn.  The signalling equipment there is barely half the age of most of that in say the Doncaster PSB area.  No doubt there are sound reasons for doing that stretch but if the decision was based solely on asset condition it seems improbable to me it would be near the top of the list.  Or put another way a cost is being incurred which otherwise wouldn't be for another decade at least.  If the answer is the age of GW-ATP then my response would be that it will still be there from Airport Jn to Bristol and the whole line from West Drayton to Bristol and South Wales has been resignalled in the last decade.      

 

Actually GW-ATP is a good example of the tangle the railway gets itself into.  It's now considered indispensable and potentially worthy of otherwise unnecessary large capital expenditure to retain an equivalent capability despite its limited coverage, its absence from every other line running at over 110mph and only one class of train being fitted with it.  I am fully aware of the history and sensitivity of Southall et al but it does rather seem to be an albatross around the necks of those making investment decisions. 

 

The cost saving potential is a clear target for ERTMS, and for ETCS where installed independently of the rest of the programme. But the Padd-Heathrow installation was an overlay for Crossrail trains, to save them all having to have a further signalling system installed - whether that has proven correct I don't know.

 

But ETCS north of Grantham will not happen until at least the early 2030's, by which time the strategy will have changed several times. We simply don't know what will be implemented then. The next scheme planned (apart from HS2) is the MML.

 

What we do know, is that the Wherry Lines scheme, which was to have been another Cambrian type of trial, has just had modern but conventional signalling installed, with future compatibility with ETCS.

 

[DY444]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The cost saving potential is a clear target for ERTMS, and for ETCS where installed independently of the rest of the programme. But the Padd-Heathrow installation was an overlay for Crossrail trains, to save them all having to have a further signalling system installed - whether that has proven correct I don't know.

 

But ETCS north of Grantham will not happen until at least the early 2030's, by which time the strategy will have changed several times. We simply don't know what will be implemented then. The next scheme planned (apart from HS2) is the MML.

 

What we do know, is that the Wherry Lines scheme, which was to have been another Cambrian type of trial, has just had modern but conventional signalling installed, with future compatibility with ETCS.

 

 

The Crossrail point can't be right as it doesn't save anything.  The only difference having ETCS from Paddington to Airport Jn makes to Crossrail is that it saves a signalling system transition from TPWS to ETCS at Airport Jn, with the trains going straight from CBTC to ETCS at Westbourne Park.  It makes no difference to the trains themselves as they still need the 3 signalling systems they already have.

 

As for the Wherry lines scheme, I'm not sure how that helps.  The interlockings may have compatibility with ETCS but you've already spent the money on lineside signals and associated gubbins.  By the time that lot needs replacing again so will the interlockings! 

[Edwin_m]

39 minutes ago, DY444 said:

 

The Crossrail point can't be right as it doesn't save anything.  The only difference having ETCS from Paddington to Airport Jn makes to Crossrail is that it saves a signalling system transition from TPWS to ETCS at Airport Jn, with the trains going straight from CBTC to ETCS at Westbourne Park.  It makes no difference to the trains themselves as they still need the 3 signalling systems they already have.

The reason was that trains on the Heathrow branch were required to be fitted with GW-ATP.  Just running there under TPWS was considered insufficiently safe, and I don't think the trackside equipment was fitted anyway.  So Crossrail units would have needed GW-ATP as well as the other systems.  ETCS was considered to offer equivalent levels of safety, so replaced the GW-ATP on the branch.  At the same time the 332 units were replaced by modern 387s which were already prepared for ETCS operation.  

Edited July 15, 2022 by Edwin_m

[Michael Hodgson]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

 

* On one occasion I attended a strike replacement 'bus service planning meeting at Brussel Zuid and one of the attendees disclaimed all knowledge of the French language while another said he was not prepared to speak it when the Chairman asked if the meeting could be conducted in French for my benefit.  So the meeting was conducted in Flemish with everything initially being translated for me but as we dealt with each item in the same format I duly acquired a limited, but sufficient, understanding of spoken Flemish to do without translation.

 

 

It's politically all very sensitive (or at least it was when I was there).    The religious divide tends to correspond with the linguistic split, in the same way as the Republican/Loyalist issue does in N Ireleand.

 

My boss in London insisted that I should not practice my French unless I could also speak Flemish when I was working at an international client based near Brussels.  🇺🇳   Their working language was English and they all spoke it fluently - apart from one accountant who happened to be Togolese and only had French - and I only met him in their US office!  Although the office site was in a francophone commune, most of the Belgian staff were native Flemish speakers who also had fluent French.  

 

They were within range of BBC TV  and were all keen followers of Allo Allo !

 

 

[DY444]

10 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

The reason was that trains on the Heathrow branch were required to be fitted with GW-ATP.  Just running there under TPWS was considered insufficiently safe, and I don't think the trackside equipment was fitted anyway.  So Crossrail units would have needed GW-ATP as well as the other systems.  ETCS was considered to offer equivalent levels of safety, so replaced the GW-ATP on branch and at the same time the 332 units were replaced by modern 387s which were already prepared for ETCS operation.  

 

TPWS was not fitted to the Heathrow tunnels nor to the Class 332s. 

 

That's not my recollection.  I don't believe there was ever an intention to fit GW-ATP to class 345.  My recollection is that ETCS was fitted to the Heathrow branch alongside GW-ATP which was to be retained until such time as the 332s were either fitted with ETCS or replaced.  However when the ETCS was commissioned it was discovered that it and GW-ATP would not work together in the Heathrow tunnels and this forced a change of plan which resulted in the removal of GW-ATP from the branch and the replacement of 332s with 387s.  

Edited July 15, 2022 by DY444

[62613]

On 13/07/2022 at 10:56, wombatofludham said:

Frankly, having seen on these videos how the Scandinavian ATP system copes with varying traffic and traction, it does beg the question why we in the UK seem to think we're unique and can't seemingly just accept reality and buy in a system.  Does rather smack of the old London Transport nonsense that they couldn't cope with off the peg buses because "London is unique" as if congestion and busy services are unheard of in Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and the like.

"Not made here" syndrome; very rife in the UK!

 

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

 

TPWS was not fitted to the Heathrow tunnels nor to the Class 332s. 

 

That's not my recollection.  I don't believe there was ever an intention to fit GW-ATP to class 345.  My recollection is that ETCS was fitted to the Heathrow branch alongside GW-ATP which was to be retained until such time as the 332s were either fitted with ETCS or replaced.  However when the ETCS was commissioned it was discovered that it and GW-ATP would not work together in the Heathrow tunnels and this forced a change of plan which resulted in the removal of GW-ATP from the branch and the replacement of 332s with 387s.  

That's consistent with my recollection.  I'm not sure if the replacement of the 332s was solely due to the ATP/ERTMS incompatiblity, as it also avoided having to build a new depot for them so HS2 could take over the existing site for the OOC station.  

59 minutes ago, 62613 said:

"Not made here" syndrome; very rife in the UK!

To be fair, ERTMS is an open architecture with reasonable assurance of equipment continuing to be available.  Any other ATP system would have tied us to a single supplier who probably wasn't interested in providing non-standard kit into the future - as was the case with the two BR systems.  

 

Network Rail and its predecessors have sometimes suffered from the opposite of "not made here" when procuring signalling systems.  Consider the Ansaldo and Siemens (before the takeover of Westinghouse) systems fitted at Stockport and Bournemouth which were never finished and used huge amounts of cabling respectively, and the Bombardier one at Horsham (I think) that was never even commissioned.  

Edited July 15, 2022 by Edwin_m

[DY444]

1 hour ago, 62613 said:

"Not made here" syndrome; very rife in the UK!

 

 

23 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

That's consistent with my recollection.  I'm not sure if the replacement of the 332s was solely due to the ATP/ERTMS incompatiblity, as it also avoided having to build a new depot for them so HS2 could take over the existing site for the OOC station.  

To be fair, ERTMS is an open architecture with reasonable assurance of equipment continuing to be available.  Any other ATP system would have tied us to a single supplier who probably wasn't interested in providing non-standard kit into the future - as was the case with the two BR systems.  

 

Network Rail and its predecessors have sometimes suffered from the opposite of "not made here" when procuring signalling systems.  Consider the Ansaldo and Siemens (before the takeover of Westinghouse) systems fitted at Stockport and Bournemouth which were never finished and used huge amounts of cabling respectively, and the Bombardier one at Horsham (I think) that was never even commissioned.  

 

Re/332s.  I think the depot thing was a sort of bonus (albeit at the cost of extra running to/from Reading) but they'd reached the point where they could switch on GW-ATP on the branch and operate 332s/360s, or switch on ETCS and operate 345s but they couldn't find a way to have both 332s and 345s so something had to give.  The 332s were supposedly not in a great state and would have required ETCS and TPWS to continue if 345s were to run to Heathrow.  So I think the compatibility issue was the primary reason

 

Re/Not invented here.  Agree. There was also Portsmouth, another Siemens pre-Westinghouse effort which was arguably a bigger foul up than the others.  Then the whole Traffic Management fiasco where they fell over backwards to avoid using home grown products, which, when they did finally try one, proved to be very successful.

 

Roger Ford of Modern Railways has a series of what he calls Informed Sources Laws which apply to railways.  The 7th law states ‘The attractiveness of technology is directly proportional to the square of the distance of its factory of origin from London’.   

Edited July 15, 2022 by DY444

[Mike Storey]

5 hours ago, DY444 said:

 

The Crossrail point can't be right as it doesn't save anything.  The only difference having ETCS from Paddington to Airport Jn makes to Crossrail is that it saves a signalling system transition from TPWS to ETCS at Airport Jn, with the trains going straight from CBTC to ETCS at Westbourne Park.  It makes no difference to the trains themselves as they still need the 3 signalling systems they already have.

 

As for the Wherry lines scheme, I'm not sure how that helps.  The interlockings may have compatibility with ETCS but you've already spent the money on lineside signals and associated gubbins.  By the time that lot needs replacing again so will the interlockings! 

 

What point? I was just making the point that a primary aim of the ERTMS "Digital Railway" programme is to save money (amongst other objectives), which is uncontestable.

 

But I stated a fact, for both Heathrow and the Wherry Lines, which suggests this is not necessarily going to plan (apart from Crossrail itself), so far. I think you are trying to provoke argument where there is, in fact, broad agreement.

 

Edited July 15, 2022 by Mike Storey

[Mike_Walker]

It's also worth noting that the Heathrow Branch and the 332/360 were not fitted with the GSM-R radio system but used the analogue CSR system until the introduction of ERTMS - the last place it was used as far as I know.  Remember too that the branch was built and owned by BAA/HAL and is not a part of Network Rail who just undertake signalling, operation and maintenance as a contractor.

 

The 332s suffered from corrosion and fatigue which would have had to have been addressed in addition to fitting GSM-R and ERTMS and simply couldn't have been justified.

 

At one time it was proposed to relocate the HEX depot to the former oil terminal site at Langley.

 

This combination of issues was sufficient for HAL to conclude it would be better for it to cease being a train operator and contracted the HEX to GWR.  It was always intended that Heathrow Connect would be replaced by Crossrail.

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

It's also worth noting that the Heathrow Branch and the 332/360 were not fitted with the GSM-R radio system but used the analogue CSR system until the introduction of ERTMS - the last place it was used as far as I know.  Remember too that the branch was built and owned by BAA/HAL and is not a part of Network Rail who just undertake signalling, operation and maintenance as a contractor.

 

The 332s suffered from corrosion and fatigue which would have had to have been addressed in addition to fitting GSM-R and ERTMS and simply couldn't have been justified.

 

At one time it was proposed to relocate the HEX depot to the former oil terminal site at Langley.

 

This combination of issues was sufficient for HAL to conclude it would be better for it to cease being a train operator and contracted the HEX to GWR.  It was always intended that Heathrow Connect would be replaced by Crossrail.

I think the other factor was that GWR had some surplus 387s and depot capacity to service them, that could be converted for the Hex service (though judging by a recent ride, still much more of a standard train than the 332).  The fleet was presumably sized to cover the cancelled electrification to Oxford.  

[The Stationmaster]

23 hours ago, 62613 said:

"Not made here" syndrome; very rife in the UK!

 

Definitely used to be the case with such things as the strong British feeling against anything from the USA (despite then buying lots of US designed and made signalling kit between c.1900 and the late 1930s).

 

But that is not so much the situation with things like ETCS where the starting point inherited railway operational philosophy in Britain is very different from the philosophy in most of mainland Europe.  Thus in many respects ETCS etc has largely developed from a modernised, electronic,  way of doing things in a manner long established 'over there' and hence is rather alien to those grounded in the British approach.  

 

You could probably more accurately say 'previously we've not thought of doing it that way' rather than 'nih'.

[bécasse]

On 15/07/2022 at 13:57, The Stationmaster said:

The problem was language - EPS/Eurostar UK and SNCF Drivers were only required to be bilingual in English and French whereas various SNCB signal boxes were in Flemish speaking areas where the staff were not required to be bilingual (in French) or if they were wouldn't admit to it - see below *.  Hence French speakers had to be provided as additional staff on the relevant shifts in any signal box staffed by Flemish speakers.  One of those unusual aspects of running a railway in Belgium but at least on that occasion I don't think there was a religious requirement as well (which did apply to salaried staff and managerial posts where religions had to be 'balanced' as well as language).

 

* On one occasion I attended a strike replacement 'bus service planning meeting at Brussel Zuid and one of the attendees disclaimed all knowledge of the French language while another said he was not prepared to speak it when the Chairman asked if the meeting could be conducted in French for my benefit.  So the meeting was conducted in Flemish with everything initially being translated for me but as we dealt with each item in the same format I duly acquired a limited, but sufficient, understanding of spoken Flemish to do without translation.

 

Back to ERTMS 

Ah, I had rather assumed that it might be that, hence my comment about Halle being in Vlaams Brabant. On the rare occasion that I catch a train from Marloie to Bruxelles, there is always an on-train announcement in Dutch alone as the train passes briefly through the Gordel,  thatdespite the fact that the train doesn't serve any station there and there are probably ten times as many passengers on the train for whom Lëtzebeurgesch is their first language than ones for whom it is Dutch.

 

There is, in fact, a direct ERTMS connection. A very early aspiration was that, with the system, signalling communication should ultimately become linguistics-free. The railway standard language does serve quite well, particularly with a constructive approach on the part of users*, but it still needs a lot of learning and it is always potentially subject to problems in areas where the pronunciation of a language is heavily accented - few Frenchmen would readily understand the Belgian French spoken by locals where I live, for example, because it is pronounced as if it were Lorrain Wallon. (*Hence horse with a pantograph, covering an omission that partly comes about because there is no simple French translation for the English word deer.)

 

 

[62613]

17 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

Definitely used to be the case with such things as the strong British feeling against anything from the USA (despite then buying lots of US designed and made signalling kit between c.1900 and the late 1930s).

 

But that is not so much the situation with things like ETCS where the starting point inherited railway operational philosophy in Britain is very different from the philosophy in most of mainland Europe.  Thus in many respects ETCS etc has largely developed from a modernised, electronic,  way of doing things in a manner long established 'over there' and hence is rather alien to those grounded in the British approach.  

 

You could probably more accurately say 'previously we've not thought of doing it that way' rather than 'nih'.

I wasn't specifically referring to the railways, but government deprtments in general.

 

[The Stationmaster]

On 16/07/2022 at 20:29, bécasse said:

 

There is, in fact, a direct ERTMS connection. A very early aspiration was that, with the system, signalling communication should ultimately become linguistics-free. The railway standard language does serve quite well, particularly with a constructive approach on the part of users*, but it still needs a lot of learning and it is always potentially subject to problems in areas where the pronunciation of a language is heavily accented - few Frenchmen would readily understand the Belgian French spoken by locals where I live, for example, because it is pronounced as if it were Lorrain Wallon. (*Hence horse with a pantograph, covering an omission that partly comes about because there is no simple French translation for the English word deer.)

 

 

I know his father-in-law - or rather, more correctly, the father-in-law of the Driver who came out with it (I also knew the Driver but don't see him nowadays although I do see his father-in-law and mother-in-law at various model railway exhibitions).

[bécasse]

13 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

I know his father-in-law - or rather, more correctly, the father-in-law of the Driver who came out with it (I also knew the Driver but don't see him nowadays although I do see his father-in-law and mother-in-law at various model railway exhibitions).

You are lucky to have model railway exhibitions to go to, albeit at some risk. The last I was able to go to was at Junglinster at the end of February 2019 and everything at all local has been cancelled ever since. Even the big Modelspoor/TMM biennial at Leuven this October has been cancelled (again).

[wombatofludham]

"A Horse with a Pantograph"

I must pass that on to a MOM friend whose patch covers the Chase Line.

[ess1uk]

On 29/06/2021 at 13:03, Shed said:

What freight locomotives are fitted for ETCS level2?

a Colas class 56 is fitted for the Cambrian so it can haul logs from Aberystwth